Reply With Quote
I try to tip 20% on all those jobs Obama has created unless they give really ty service.
your fooled if you give him credit for the job creation measured by only quan y rather than quality. the fact is, most jobs created during obama's administration are ty ones that most people don't want to take, but sometimes have to take because of living pressure. while the number of jobs overall has been increasing, the decent jobs are gradually disappearing and the middle class is shrinking as a result. it's like converting a $100 cash into a handful of cashes of smaller values, don't get yourselves deluded into thinking obama has done something to "create" any jobs tbh
I try to tip 20% on all those jobs Obama has created unless they give really ty service.
Establishment Republicans being replaced by other establishment Republicans who pretend they're outsiders hardly represents a shift to the right, tbh....
Blaming Obama for corporations killing, exporting well-paid jobs? GMAFB
The tier the jobs and salaries, the more $Bs for mgmt and investors.
The more the temp/contract/outsourced jobs, less "wasted" on salaries, benefits, the more $Bs for mgmt and investors.
Wanna get a huge bonus? Layoff Ks or 10Ks of people.
I didn't know you were suppose ti tip government employees, and why should I? They always give bad service.
the obvious Repug strategy has been/is to maintain/worsen the economy and jobs, the all round pain (for the 99%), as bad a possible for Nov 2012
Obstruct and Exploit
Does anyone remember the American Jobs Act? A year ago President Obama proposed boosting the economy with a combination of tax cuts and spending increases, aimed in particular at sustaining state and local government employment. Independent analysts reacted favorably. For example, the consulting firm Macroeconomic Advisers estimated that the act would add 1.3 million jobs by the end of 2012.
There were good reasons for these positive assessments. Although you'd never know it from political debate, worldwide experience since the financial crisis struck in 2008 has overwhelmingly confirmed the proposition that fiscal policy "works," that temporary increases in spending boost employment in a depressed economy (and that spending cuts increase unemployment). The Jobs Act would have been just what the doctor ordered.
But the bill went nowhere, of course, blocked by Republicans in Congress. And now, having prevented Mr. Obama from implementing any of his policies, those same Republicans are pointing to disappointing job numbers and declaring that the president's policies have failed.
Think of it as a two-part strategy.
First, obstruct any and all efforts to strengthen the economy,
then exploit the economy's weakness for political gain.
If this strategy sounds cynical, that's because it is. Yet it's the G.O.P.'s best chance for victory in November.
But are Republicans really playing that cynical a game?
You could argue that we're having a genuine debate about economic policy, in which Republicans sincerely believe that the things Mr. Obama proposes would actually hurt, not help, job creation. However, even if that were true, the fact is that the economy we have right now doesn't reflect the policies the president wanted.
Anyway, do Republicans really believe that government spending is bad for the economy? No.
Right now Mitt Romney has an advertising blitz under way in which he attacks Mr. Obama for possible cuts in defense spending - cuts, by the way, that were mandated by an agreement forced on the president by House Republicans last year. And why is Mr. Romney denouncing these cuts? Because, he says, they would cost jobs!
This is classic "weaponized Keynesianism" - the claim that government spending can't create jobs unless the money goes to defense contractors, in which case it's the lifeblood of the economy. And no, it doesn't make any sense.
What about the argument, which I hear all the time, that Mr. Obama should have fixed the economy long ago? The claim goes like this: during his first two years in office Mr. Obama had a majority in Congress that would have let him do anything he wanted, so he's had his chance.
The short answer is, you've got to be kidding.
As anyone who was paying attention knows, the period during which Democrats controlled both houses of Congress was marked by unprecedented obstructionism in the Senate. The filibuster, formerly a tactic reserved for rare occasions, became standard operating procedure; in practice, it became impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. And Democrats had those 60 votes for only a few months. Should they have tried to push through a major new economic program during that narrow window? In retrospect, yes - but that doesn't change the reality that for most of Mr. Obama's time in office U.S. fiscal policy has been defined not by the president's plans but by Republican stonewalling.
The most important consequence of that stonewalling, I'd argue, has been the failure to extend much-needed aid to state and local governments. Lacking that aid, these governments have been forced to lay off hundreds of thousands of schoolteachers and other workers, and those layoffs are a major reason the job numbers have been disappointing. Since bottoming out a year after Mr. Obama took office, private-sector employment has risen by 4.6 million; but government employment, which normally rises more or less in line with population growth, has instead fallen by 571,000.
Put it this way: When Republicans took control of the House, they declared that their economic philosophy was "cut and grow" - cut government, and the economy will prosper. And thanks to their scorched-earth tactics, we've actually had the cuts they wanted. But the promised growth has failed to materialize - and they want to make that failure Mr. Obama's fault.
Now, all of this puts the White House in a difficult bind. Making a big deal of Republican obstructionism could all too easily come across as whining. Yet this obstructionism is real, and arguably is the biggest single reason for our ongoing economic weakness.
And what happens if the strategy of obstruct-and-exploit succeeds? Is this the shape of politics to come? If so, America will have gone a long way toward becoming an ungovernable banana republic.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...&sub=Columnist
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-10-2012 at 06:32 AM.
Palin won Governor.
Bachmann... wins reelction to Congress consistantly.
You just dont encounter the word "Truncheon" every day.
Economy adds 114k jobs in September and unemployment rate drops to 7.8%. Romney can't use the old unemployment has stayed above 8% for x months anymore. CC is likely to stroke out.
Not stroking out, just have zero faith in their numbers. You want to celebrate a mythical 7.8% unemployment, be my guest.
189,000 jobs are added in August and the unemployment is 8.1%
Only 166,000 jobs added in September and the unemployment drops to 7.8%?
Published on Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 8:15 AM ET
September 2012 ADP National Employment Report
®
Employment in the U.S. nonfarm private business sector increased by 162,000 from August to
September, on a seasonally adjusted basis. The estimated gains in previous months were revised
lower: The July increase was reduced by 17,000 to an increase of 156,000, while the August
increase was reduced by 12,000 to an increase of 189,000.
Employment in the private, service-providing sector expanded 144,000 in September, down from
175,000 in August. Employment in the private, goods-producing sector added 18,000 jobs in
September. Manufacturing employment rose 4,000, while construction employment rose 10,000,
the strongest since March when mild winter weather was boosting construction activity. The
financial services sector added 7,000 jobs in September, marking the fourteenth consecutive
monthly gain.
Employment on large payrolls—those with 500 or more workers—increased 17,000 and
employment on medium payrolls—those with 50 to 499 workers—rose 64,000 in September.
Employment on small payrolls—those with up to 49 workers—rose 81,000 that same period. Of
the 64,000 jobs created on medium-sized payrolls, 10,000 jobs were created by the goodsproducing sector and 54,000 jobs were created by the service-providing sector.
For more information, please visit the methodology section of the ADP National Employment
Report website at http://ADPemploymentreport.com/methodology.aspx.
According to the labor department report, U6 is unchanged at 14.7%.
No celebration here. I have little faith in the numbers as well. I just find it amusing that Romney lost his 8% talking point. Now he has to talk about the shrinking workforce, which is a much more difficult concept for the uneducated masses that may actually vote for this moron to grasp
Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric caused a stir after the numbers were released, tweeting "Unbelievable jobs numbers...these Chicago guys will do anything...can't debate so change numbers."
So do you think they actually modified the way they do the numbers this month in an effort to manipulate the electorate? Is this your conspiracy theory
... famous for having converting GE into a financial machine, gutting much of its technical prowess and killing 1000s of GE jobs.
It's funny how Republicans cheer for the economy to do poorly under Democratic leadership and get pissed whenever an unemployment number that's been calculated the same way for decades goes down. Would you have preferred it went up? Stayed the same?
Some of it is subconscious and some of it is deliberate, but it's clear Republicans in this country care more about Obama failing than America thriving.
What kind of bull accusation is that? Nobody is cheering the awful job numbers. It's a ing national tragedy that 15% of the people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.
Boy, that was convenient.
That's great if completely unsurprising. At the same time, how do you reconcile that with the rhetoric that the GOP, it's flagship station at FOX, and their presidential candidate in particular decrying the economy on the basis of said figures. You also completely unsurprisingly give them a pass by ignoring that but I was wondering specifically what your stance was. Do you:
A) Understand feel that they are full of and willingly unrepresentative.
B) Feel they have a good point even it completely contradicts your statement of above.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49299718The report presented a slew of contradictory data points, with the total employment level soaring despite the low net number.
The falling jobless rate had been a function as much of the continued shrinking in the labor force as it was an increase in new positions.
But the government said the total number of jobs employed surged by 873,000, the highest one-month jump in 29 years. The total of unemployed people tumbled by 456,000.
Underemployed? This word has made a comeback during the Obama years..lol
So are you insinuating that Ms. Solis misrepresented data?
How can their report say the economy added 114,000 jobs from August to September, yet also say that from August to September 873,000 more people had jobs?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
